The Army 6.2 program identifies and focuses on selected technologies
that will provide the maximum warfighting capability for every dollar invested. This
demands a significant dual commitment to inhouse Army applied research and to the
expansion of cooperative efforts with the other services and industry. The Army leverages
research and technology opportunities in academia, industry, and the international
community to promote efficiency and synergy at all levels. In particular, the Army
Research Laboratory (ARL) implementation of the federated laboratory concept plays a
significant role in this strategy. The technology leveraging and transfer program is
discussed more fully in Chapter NO TAG.

The Army S&T oversight process, as described in Chapter I,
prioritizes technology needs and opportunities based upon their potential to provide
critical battlefield capabilities. These capabilities are jointly defined by the combat
and materiel developers. The early and continuous involvement of the warfighter in the
S&T capabilities definition process allows for a balanced look at the "technology
push" coming from the Armys S&T community and the "requirements
pull" prompted by the needs of the warfighter. A mechanism that promotes this
alignment is the interplay between the combat and materiel developers that occurs during
the Army Science and Technology Objective (STO) reviews and the TRADOC S&T reviews.
Both occur in the spring, and result in an S&T program that is attuned to the
warfighters evolving vision of the future (e.g., Force XXI, Army After Next).

Studies by the National Research Councils Board on Army Science
and Technology (BAST) Study on Strategic Technologies for the Army of the 21st Century
(STAR) panel, the Defense Science Board (DSB), the Army Science Board (ASB), the
Armys inhouse S&T community, and the TRADOC battle laboratories and
schools have all recommended that Army S&T focus on "critical" technologies.
The Army 6.2 investment reflects this commitment to eliminate the barriers that impede
technological opportunities presented by the most promising
stateoftheart advances. While its main focus is providing capabilities
for land force dominance, the Army investment is also aligned with the Department of
Defense (DoD) strategy as summarized in Chapter I.

Each section in this chapter is structured to define the area of
technology, summarize the Armys ongoing technological work, and provide a forecast
of future capabilities. The years shown on each technical objectives table approximate key
aspects of the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution system (PPBES) process
timetable. FY9899 relates to the budget years. FY0004 addresses the program
objective memorandum (POM) time period, and FY0513 covers the Army research,
development, and acquisition (RDA) Plan. The Army STOs that are associated with this
chapter can be found in Volume II, Annex NO TAG.